Revisions to the Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures and Related Issues (Dec 2015)

The
existing set of ‘Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures’ (Policy) was
implemented on 1 January 2012. Following a review to enhance the existing
procedures in the light of operational experience, some revisions are made to
the Policy and the ‘Procedures for Handling Formal Sexual Harassment
Complaints’ as set out in Appendix III (a) of the Policy. Some
footnotes are added to the relevant clauses of the ‘Regulations Governing Staff
Discipline’ in handling substantiated complaints of sexual harassment. The
revisions presented below will take effect from 1 December 2015:

To
state clearly that subject to the requirements of the Personal Data (Privacy)
Ordinance, both the “victim-complainant” (he/she being the direct victim of the
alleged harassment) and the alleged harasser should be informed of the outcome
of the investigation including penalty recommended or imposed on the wrongdoer,
if any.

To
provide the Investigation Panel (IP) with a set of standard terms of reference
which may be adopted or amended as circumstances dictate.

Clause
7 (d) under Interviewing Witnesses

To
specify clearly that the IP will have the right to determine whether or not to
interview witness(es) and the witness(es) to be interviewed.

Clause
7 (e) under Provision of Information Materials

To
specify that the complainant and the alleged harasser should be made aware that
all written submissions before the IP and records of interview conducted by the
IP concerning either party may be provided to the other party; and all
interviews with the complainant, alleged harasser and witness(es), if any,
should be recorded in writing and signed and confirmed as correct by the
individuals concerned. However, in case any of such individuals declines to
sign the interview statement, the IP can still take into account such interview
record in making its findings and decisions.

Clause
7 (f) under Findings and Clause 21

To
clarify the standard of proof required in the proceedings which is consistent
with the other related University regulations such as the ‘Regulations
Governing Staff Discipline’.

Clause
8

To
extend the timeline for the IP to complete its work from two months to three
months.

Clause
14

To
provide the IP with the option to make recommendation on the penalties to be
imposed on the alleged harasser. In cases where the complainant is a victim of
wrongdoing committed by the alleged harasser, both the victim-complainant and
the alleged harasser should be informed of whether disciplinary action will be
recommended against the alleged harasser and the penalties recommended, if any,
such that both parties will have the chance to make representations to the IP
before the IP concludes the case.

Clause
15

To
reduce the role of the Chairperson of the Committee Against Sexual Harassment
(CASH) in the case of substantiated sexual harassment complaints to the minimum
to streamline the procedures between the IP and the relevant disciplinary
authorities. He/she needs to be informed only of the IP’s findings and
recommendations that disciplinary action will be pursued against the harasser,
leaving the decision whether or not to adopt the recommendations of the IP to
the disciplinary authorities concerned.

Clause
17

To
state clearly that both the victim-complainant and the alleged harasser should
be informed by the disciplinary authority concerned whether the complaint is
established, and whether disciplinary action will be taken and the penalties
imposed.

Clause
18

To
specify that if the harasser wants to lodge an appeal against the
recommendations of the IP and/or the decision of the disciplinary authority, he/she
will have the right to do so after the disciplinary proceedings are completed.

Clause
20 and 21

To
change the single-person appeal authority appointed by the Chairperson of CASH
to consider an appeal from the complainant in case the complaint is not
established by the IP to a Review Committee with two persons or more to review
the case.

Clause
23

To
specify that if a complaint is not established in the first instance but
subsequently established by the Review Committee, the alleged harasser will be
given the opportunity to make representation on the outcome of the review before
the Chairperson of CASH concludes the case. In the event that the complaint is
established, both the appellant (victim-complainant) and the alleged harasser
should be informed as to whether the complaint is established, and whether
consideration will be given to instituting disciplinary action against the
alleged harasser and the penalties recommended (as the case may be).

Clause
25

To
specify that to prevent the duplication of investigation resources, the disciplinary
authority/Chairperson of CASH shall be entitled to and have the discretion to
accept all or part of the findings and/or recommendations of another committee
of the University.

Clause
26

To clarify what evidence
will show that a complaint has been made in bad faith which may lead to disciplinary
action.

A full set of the
revised ‘Sexual Harassment Policy and Procedures’ is set out in Attachment I.

C. ‘Regulations Governing
Staff Discipline’

To
add appropriate footnotes to the relevant Clauses 8, 26.4, 28.3 and 28.6 in the
‘Regulations Governing Staff Discipline’ in handling substantiated complaints
of sexual harassment. If the complainant is a victim of wrongdoing committed
by the alleged harassers, both the alleged harasser and the victim-complainant
should be informed of the outcome of a complaint/appeal, the disciplinary
action and the penalties recommended or imposed against the alleged harasser, if
any.